Recent comments by: Gecko
Agribuzz with David Leyonhjelm
And which agri company have you invested in, David?
There is a heap of money wasted on Senators. Need to find out which $$ need to be shaved off and save tax payers a whole lot of money!
Senator Leyonhjelm's views on Australian Agricultural industries are well known. He is a threat to every farmer in Australia. The arrangements on how a levy for any particular ag industry RDC should be increased is the problem. It must have more than the majority (75%)support for any increase which then requires the proponents to clearly identify why an increase is justified. In most cases it is and driven by grass-roots farmers. The levy must remain compulsory otherwise it would create inequity and free-loaders.
David Leynonhjelm certainly does need to gets his facts right before engaging his mouth. Already seen a couple of serious issues he has spoken about on national television. He might also make reference to the deliberate exclusion of sugar from the US FTA. Sugar was sacrificed to get other trade-offs in that US TradeOff Agreement. The then Federal Government, acknowledging that, provided the funding for a restructure of the industry that allowed growers to exit. Has he asked how many millions milling companies received?
Pure fantasy? When the CEO of a major fertiliser company admits their pricing structure was based on the ability to pay, clearly indicated that the fertiliser companies simply going for what they can get. Also they adopted "world parity" pricing even though the Gibson Island plant was making urea much, much cheaper.
Wilmar? Well, QSL obtains a premium when selling into Asia. If Wilmar takes the sugar produced at the mills in Queensland to its own refineries in Asia it wont be applying the premium to that sugar. Who misses out? The growers.
David Leyonhjelm a Senator. Now that is really scary!
There have been some saying that why have Josh Frydenberg as the minister responsible for the Northern Australia, especially coming from an inner Melbourne electorate. Well if the person appointed to the job is good at what they do, it shouldn't matter where they are living in Australia.
My original understanding was that GST was the centre piece of tax reform and that the number of taxes would be rationalised so that the whole tax system was simplified with the core tax income coming from GST. For many farmers most of the GST is "no-effect" GST in that it is paid and then reclaimed through BAS. Simply moving money around. In the good ol days a farmers would simply claim Sales Tax exemption. No tax paid, no tax reclaimed.
Maybe the average person is starting to "wise-up" on these "free-trade" deals that are providing greater benefit to other countries and less to our own.
I noted a political commentator comparing the value or having patent rights on pharmaceuticals reduced providing multi million dollar benefit to the Pharmaceuticals Benefits Scheme and the trade-off of leaving diary and sugar out of the TPP arrangements with US. What he was saying is stuff our farmers and give multi million dollar benefit to US pharmaceutical companies, who should have a greater moral value to reduce cost of pharmaceuticals for the world.
Sugar trade will not be part of the TPP. Sugar is not treated as a commodity in any FTA. It is used as a political pawn. It is ludicrous that in the two largest world economies that dont produce enough sugar domestically, are the two firmily against sugar trade in FTA's. You have to be awakened by this. So why? Is it so thay can dictate world trade in sugar, dictate the price?
WHAT FREE TRADE! Sugar is not considered a commodity to be included in FTA's, is it used as a political product. Here we have the right and proper thing to do to protect one of Australia's primary industries and we have a senior member of the Abbott government going off at this.
Why are so many worried about the financial sustainability of IFED? If they want to have a go, and if, if, they go down the tube, let the investors then howl about it. Get the north developed!
The issue has been raised because some of the biigger growers in some ag industries dont want to pay. They are content getting all of the benefits but are looking at the considerable sums they have to pay and claiming that it is inequitable and they want out.
Senator Leyonhjelm has jumped on this cry from a select few and is demanding that changes be made. Let the industry bodies sort it. If government intervention is the outcome, then less money will be available for the particular industries to utilise, aand decide themselves on spending. Lost $$ to pay someone to have a job.
The US drop is protectionist tariffs and TRQ's! What a joke. Re-release this report on 1st April. It will have higher credibility!
What is clear is the benefits that millers enjoyed under the regulated environment and continue to enjoy in the unregulated environment. They are simply imposing the benfits that they enjoy. However it is interesting that only the "new" comers to the industry want change. Despite the industry agreement attaching to the deregulation of the Sugar Industry, that marketing would remain with the industry owned marketing company, the "new comers" claim that they did sign off on that, so they can do whatever they want. That includes giving the growers the "bird".
Dear angasb, who are the "we"?
The aim of any GM is to help nature. Our scientists can use GM technology to help nature by restructuring plants to produce better yields, by have greater tolerance to pests and diseases. GM cotton has been around for a while, so has Cotton Seed oil. All Diabetic Insulin users have been using GM technology produced insulin for years.
The recommended code of conduct will prevent the Australian Sugar Industry from being ruined by the big foreign owned milling companies. But will the Abbott goverenment support the recommendation? Already the Foreign Minister has stuck her nose into the arguement in the support of Wilmar Chairman and the Singaporean government. She has written to the Queensland goverenment asking them to vote down the Private Members Bill's of the KAP and LNP, which are seeking a similar outcome to the recommended Code of Conduct
She is giving no support to an Australian Industry or workers.
It is incredible! The most widely used herbicide in the world, for the past several decades, and there is no factual evidence of any relationship between glyphosate and any form of cancer. Then out of the blue IARC coughs up this "view". Cough up the science that has had rigourous review and then, maybe, some interest will be taken.
I'm agast that there are people out there who support Sen. Leyonhjelm's views!. This Senator has made his views on Australian Augriculture very clear. He is anti anything that looks like support to Ag industries. All farmers in Australia should fear what this Senator can and will do to Agriculture in Australia!
Farmers are at the end of the price chain and will cop the full impact of increases in costs of inputs but will not be able to either claim against any emmission trading or offset the additional input costs. But it won't effect consumers, unlike other businesses, farmers just can't simply add on the extra costs to their price. Eventually they will simply give up trying and Australia will have to rely on primary production from overseas, it is then that consumers will pay dearly, in value, in quality and in unacceptible (Australian standards) chemical residuals levels in food. (and probably from a country that has no method or reducing carbon emmissions).
The growers are getting sick and tired of hearing the great virtues of what sugar cane can offer as an energy crop but there are no investors around. Why? Clearly, as demonstrated world wide, sugar cane is the best crop to use to produce ethanol. Investors need the governments, State & Federal to invoke confidence by introducing manatory levels of ethanol in motor vehicles fuels.
Goes to show how out of touch the ACFA are. The industry stakeholders wanted the change to happen, not just the milling companies. Millers and grower representatives voted themselves off the QSL Board to allow the change to independant directors.